Madras High Court
A.Ganga @ Gangathar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 June, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.P.No.2077 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition No.2077 of 2025 and
W.M.P.Nos.2432 and 2435 of 2025
A.Ganga @ Gangathar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police/
Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Service,
Whannels Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore – 632 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records in the order bearing No. in with order in G.O.(D) No.1223
Home (Prison-IVA) Department dated 10.10.2024, passed by the
respondent No.1 and quash the same and directing the respondents
to release the petitioner namely Ganga @ Gangathar @ Gangatharan
S/o. Anjinappa, aged about 44 years, Life Convict, Ct.No.16126, now
confined in Central Prison, Vellore – 2, immediately under the scheme
of 1994 policy for premature release of life convicts.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
W.P.No.2077 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
-----
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
It is a specific case of the petitioner that during the occurrence for
which he was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment, he was a juvenile. He, therefore, seeks for interference to
the sentence of life imprisonment.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the prisoner herein had
committed the offence under Section 376 read with 302 IPC on
07.10.1996. After due trial, he was convicted for the said offence and a
judgment was passed in S.C.No.164 of 2000 on 28.01.2001. The further
appeal in Crl.A.No.365 of 2002 was also dismissed by this Court on
20.11.2007. Thereafter, no further appeal was filed. In none of these
proceedings, the petitioner had taken a plea that he was a juvenile at the
time of occurrence.
3. Incidentally, when the petitioner herein had approached the
Juvenile Justice Board through a representation dated 02.11.2024 for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
determination of his age at the time of occurrence, the same has been
rejected on 28.11.2024 by observing that appropriate orders can be
obtained by the petitioner from the High Court and thereby, rejected the
petitioner's request.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karan v. State of M.P., (2023) 5
SCC 504 had held that determination of age for a person, who claims to
be a Juvenile can be recognised at any stage even after the case has been
finally decided.
“14. A perusal of the aforesaid section firstly
gives a right to a person alleged to have committed
an offence to claim that he is a child on the date of
commission of offence and if such a claim is raised,
the court concerned shall make an inquiry, take such
evidence as may be necessary other than the
affidavit to determine the age of such person. The
proviso to sub-section (2) further makes it clear that
such a claim can be raised before any court and the
same could be recognised at any stage even after the
case has been finally decided. The claim so made
would be determined in accordance with the
provisions of the 2015 Act and the Rules made
thereunder even if such person has ceased to be a
child whether on or before the commencement of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
2015 Act. The law provides full coverage to a person
who is established to be a child on the date of the
offence to avail the benefits admissible to a child
under the 2015 Act even if the case has been finally
decided and also such person has attained majority.
Further, sub-section (3) provides that if it is found in
the inquiry that such person was a child on the date
of commission of such offence then the court is
required to forward the child to the Juvenile Justice
Board (in short “JJB”) for passing appropriate
orders and further if any sentence has been imposed
by the court, the same shall be deemed to have no
effect. In view of the above statutory provisions and
in view of the findings recorded, the appellant
having been held to be a child on the date of
commission of the offence, the sentence imposed has
to be made ineffective.”
5. Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act) provides for a
procedure to be adopted by the Juvenile Justice Board for determination
of a person's age when there is a doubt. For ready reference, Section
94(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder:
“(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has
reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
person brought before it is a child or not, the
Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall
undertake the process of age determination, by seeking
evidence by obtaining—
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school,
or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the
concerned examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation
or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above,
age shall be determined by an ossification test or any
other latest medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the
order of the Committee or the Board shall be
completed within fifteen days from the date of such
order.”
As such, the claim of the petitioner for re-determination of his age at the
time of occurrence can be entertained.
6. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, we are of
the view that the petitioner can be delegated to the Juvenile Justice Board,
Krishnagiri for determination of his age as on 07.10.1996. Accordingly,
the order dated 28.11.2024 of the Juvenile Justice Board is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
Consequently, there shall be direction to the third respondent herein to
produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board along with a
copy of this order. On receipt of the order, the Juvenile Justice Board
shall initiate proceedings under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act for
determination of the petitioner's age as on 07.10.1996 and pass
appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
7. Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.S.R, J.) (V.L.N, J.)
20.06.2025
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police/
Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Service,
Whannels Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore – 632 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
M.S. RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
and W.M.P.Nos.5934 and 5935 of 2025
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:11 am )
